Slashdot Mirror
Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure
Moiche writes "Medical researchers at CalTech and the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles have successfully inhibited cancer growth in mice by wrapping engineered RNA in nanomaterials and introducing them into the bloodstream. Two polymers and a special coating allow the therapeutic RNA to enter the cancer cell and release the therapeutic RNA payload. The new technique has slowed or prevented the development of secondary tumors in lab mice with Ewing's sarcoma. Further testing is planned on humans, and with other cancers. The Diamond Age seems closer, day by day."
A good friend of mine found out today that she has inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). I would like to belive that a technology like this could help her, but I don't think that she will ever get that chance.
Why not piggyback on nature and use some relatively harmless virus for transporting the RNA into the cells? Would it be too hard to create the virus with the RNA, or to grow the virus without it mutating into something not containing the RNA?
It is well established that if one has a alkaline PH-balance it is impossible for cancers to form. Why this is necessary when simple nutrition and proper readjustment of PH will prevent cancer in the first place I am not sure, other than I suppose having people be healthy in the first place doesn't make money for pharmaceutical and medical technology developers, while high-tech developments of Rube Goldberg-type devices do.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The tricky part is that each individual cancer must have a particular treatment created for it. It's not a generic cancer cure, but rather one that can be targeted against certain very specific types of cancer. They'd need to know exactly what's genetically wrong with the cell in order to cure it.
Not only that, but if the iRNA sequence not only matches the problem RNA but also a healthy one, you could potentially be interfering with normal gene function. That's why they targeted Ewing's sarcoma, a cancer that "provides a clear and unambiguous target".
Finally, this doesn't seem to actually cure the cancer, but rather puts it into submission. Think of the cancer cell's nucleus spitting out bogus RNA, only to be chopped up by iRNA that matches it. You'd need to take the treatment essentially forever. Drug companies could make billions.
Strange that they are using PEO and cyclodextrin as a "encapsulating" polymeric source for the transferrin. I would think that PEO would be not very good choice for living cells (cancerous or non-cancerous). If the body needs to digest this polymer, PEO has a history of problems with its by-products. Most of the by-products are ethanol, which would kill the cells. Probably callogen or similar forms would be better. Perhaps, they are already using similar types of polymers.
Saying that RNAi makes a cell scream "Virus!", and thus destroying the RNA (or cell - you were grossly unclear) is a grossly misleading. RNAi 'knocks down' a gene by complementing the RNA target, leading to the degredation of the target RNA thus knocking down protein expression. Plants have been shown to use RNAi to resist viruses, but that hasn't been shown for mammalian systems (we use toll-like receptors (TLR-3 for dsRNA and TLR-8 for ssRNA specifically) to recognise RNA and induce an interferon response). Now, we often introduce RNAi by way of viral vectors, but that's a whole different story.
Dude, do you realize that electronics 30 years ago were in their infancy? OOooh look, a transistor radio!
Nanotech will grow exponentially just like electronics (expect some Moore Law regarding nanotech to appear soon). Problem is, exponential growth rates are VERY SLOW on the beginnings.
But wait in 10 or 15 years when nanotubes manufacturing is completely understood and industrialized.
I can't believe that this comment was scored 5,Informative. It is totaly misleading. The RNA:RNA hybrid does not scream "virus". In fact it goes under the "virus radar" and does not elicit the interferone responce. A more acurate description would be that it hijacks a mechanism that is used in generation of small regulatory RNAs (micro or miRNAs) and results in cleavage of the targed. The biggest achievement of this research is the delivery system which looks very efficient and is the best alternative to virus vectors so far. As for the use of RNAi in any therapy, I have my reservations. The reason is that these RNAs can and do work as miRNAs and thus are not as selective towards their targets as people would like to think. As a result they will perturb the expression of multiple genes in addition to their target.
You nasty, brutal, (but) realistic bastard.
You have managed to capture the essence of everything that I can't stand about myself.
Thank you. I am now a more sensitive, kinder, loving person.
Peace.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
You make some very good points except there are a lot more science experts here than you might think. I think most of them are lurkers who don't post much. One reason has already been mentioned. Scientists don't really like to comment on things unless they have RTFA and the background and thought about it which is a bit of work even if the topic is in your field of expertise. Secondly, some of the issues brought up are really very complex and it takes a lot of effort to try to give enough background so that the comment makes sense to the non-expert. A third reason is one that you touch upon - the amount of noise - i.e. why would anyone make the effort if they are going to be shouted down?
/. is not really for science news - you can read Nature or Science for that - but for the unfiltered noise itself. This is one of the best places to get opinions of a large population of fairly intelligent non-experts on current topics of science. While there are a few zealots, I find the /. community as whole to be very receptive to science. They help identify areas where scientists need to spend more time and energy communicating ideas and countering FUD.
But, the reason to read
Ok, let me see: a genetic payload designed to disrupt normal cell operations, a coating designed to protect/hide the payload until it is injected into the cell. Isn't that a virus? Is this the first artificial virus? (Excepting the modified natural virii which have been used for decades for medical research).
#include "cunning_plan.h"